live oscar sunday, february 28th on abc." this is "gps: the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i am fareed zakaria. we have an important show for you today. we will start with apple versus the fbi, the white house plans to close guantanamo, isis, and the most dangerous current threats facing the world. all that with the only man to have headed both the cia and the

nsa, michael hayden. then the richest man in the world, bill gates. the tech billionaire tells me his thoughts on the battle between apple and the u.s. government, on the u.s. presidential race, and on why he is betting big to find a new energy source. >> it needs us to invest today. also, is there any way to prevent crime? well, how about paying the would-be criminals not to commit crimes in the first place? a crazy idea or a workable solution? find out. but first, here is "my take." it's time to quote w.b. yeats famous poem again. "things fall apart, the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." this time is really does seem that the political center is under intense pressure from left and right all over the western

world. in britain david cameron's center right government faces a revolt over his country's membership in the european union. in germany angela merkel's broad left/right coalition is being battered for her handling of migration. across europe, governments that occupy the center ground find themselves struggling against energized movements from right and left. in the united states as well, the centrists are under siege. hillary clinton faces the most serious left-wing challenge to a mainstream democrat in deck cates. on the republican side, the moderates have mostly collapsed. the party establishment is now coalescing around senator marco rubio, who when elected was described as the first senator from the tea party. the populists and radicals have filled space that major parties have vacated. after the end of the cold war political parties in the west started moving to the center. think of labor under tony blair or bill clinton's democrats.

the republican party is a partial exception to this rule, yet even there the last two gop presidents, the bushes, governed mostly from the center. certainly enough so that they enraged their conservative supporters and fueled insurgencies. area the centrists so vulnerable? the reality is these moderate politicians have actually performed well in recent decades. look at the challenges they faced from the integration of eastern europe after the cold war to wars in the balkans to 9/11, the global financial crisis. they've managed to steer their countries through these difficult times. the problem is that while they may be competent, centrists tend to be dull, practical types, and there is always a search for

romance in politics. even amid centrists' success, there are still enough problems to galvanize romantics who believe the answer is revolution. for bernie sanders it is revolution from the left. for ted cruz it is one from the right. and donald trump almost magically mixes and matches the furies of both ends of the spectrum. >> whoa! >> david miliband, the former british foreign minister, remains the most effective spokesman for europe's modern center left. he argues that the left and right wing revolts stem from the same force, globalization. the right has no good answer to the problem that globalization erodes people's identities, he told me. the left has no good answer to the problem that globalization exacerbates inequality. that leaves traditional politicians struggling to hold onto their supporters while outsiders promise easy answers. the easy answers are, of course, nonanswers, and they mostly won't happen. the united states will not build a wall nor deported 11 million people nor place a ban on all muslims entering the country. britain will not leave the

european union. but what is happening is political paralysis. the radicals and romantics might not have the power to overturn the centrists, but they can place them under relentless pressure. david cameron will spend the next months consumed with opposing the forces of so-called brexit. in the united states, the country and its political leaders have now spent months debating fantasies. meanwhile, there is no discussion of the important issues and the actual plausible policy options to deal with them regarding the global economic slowdown, massive infrastructure deficits, growing inequality, climate change among others. yeats was wrong, the center can and does hold, but just barely. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. let's get started. i have lots to talk about with my guest, michael hayden, from the presidential race to apple's battle with the fbi to drones.

i have lots to talk about with my guest, michael hayden, from the presidential race to apple's battle with the fbi to drones. hayden was the director of the national security agency and the director of the central intelligence agency, the only guy to have held both of those jobs. he has a new book out called "playing to the edge: american intelligence in the age of terror." mike hayden, thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> so you were advising jeb bush? >> i was. >> you have obviously -- no longer doing that? >> right. >> if donald trump were to get the republican nomination and he were to call you and ask would you be on his national security team, would you? >> wow. that would be a really tough question. i would have to think whether or not it would be worth it, whether or not a candidate

trump would be willing to listen to folks like me. he said a lot of things in the campaign that make me incredibly uncomfortable, and so i don't know that this would be something that i would naturally embrace. on the other hand, you know, we all have responsibilities as citizens, so i'd have to take that into account, but i guess my out, fareed, is i don't expect that to happen. i don't expect him to ask me. >> what do you think of some of his proposals? and one has to ask this question, because he is the front-runner in the republican party right now. he says he believes it would be very effective if he were to threaten and, indeed, kill the families of suspected or convicted terrorists. >> first of all, that's not consistent with the laws of armed conflict, with any sense of western morality, and it's not very damn effective either. we talk about fighting the close fight. we've got to do some things kinetically because there are dangers today but we always knew, fareed, there are second and third order effects. we tried to meter them so we got the primary effect. he's not going to come kill us, but we don't create problems further down the road. my god, what kind of problems would an action like that create for not years but generations?

>> let's talk about what else is in the news. you have said a couple things that surprised me, mike, which is that you had a lot of sympathy for apple's position in the apple v. fbi thing. i would have thought nsa/cia -- >> sure. >> the san bernardino terrorist has a phone. the phone is the property of san bernardino county. there may be information there about the next terrorist attack. don't you want apple to just unlock that phone? >> so i parse it out. it's not quite as simple as that. there is a broad approach by our government and director comey for reasons that should be clear because of his responsibilities, really wants baked into the operating system of apple and other big companies a way that u.s. law enforcement under all the right rules, all right, court order and so on, can cut through even the very best encryption. now, my view, fareed, as the former director of nsa, that

creates a weakness in the encryption. now the question becomes -- put the privacy stuff aside. i mean, i have views on that but no particular expertise. i'm a security guy. i actually think, fareed, on raw security grounds america is a safer place with unbreakable end-to-end encryption, not encryption that may have been compromised by our government's effort to preserve access despite the very good encryption. the government has chosen, quite wisely if not cleverly, to fight it out on this one specific front, one particular phone, and here, fareed, i am far more sympathetic with the government. i don't mean to be splitting the baby for you here, but i think these are two different issues. this can, as you suggest, be a one-off, specific, one phone, limited purpose, limited time warranted by the court. what tim cook is arguing, that this inevitably leads to that.

the burden of proof is on tim to actually demonstrate that. and by the way, the government's position that this is a one-off is not helped when you see suggested, as we have in the press, around the country there are another dozen phones waiting for such a treatment. and even here in manhattan, you have the u.s. attorney say i have a room full of these things that i want apple to take care of after they're done in california. that cuts against the argument that this is just a one-off. but, again, on balance, in general no enabling baked into the encryption because it makes us all less secure, but i'm willing to listen to the argument why apple has to be compelled to open this phone this time. >> but you seem to be splitting the baby because the whole point, you know, on the one side the government is saying, look, you can always open one phone, five phone, ten phones, if doesn't compromise the whole system. >> right. >> and apple is saying, no, no, but it does. you kind of have to choose between those two views.

>> but the facts matter. look, this is the heart of my book. there were no easy answers. everything involved a trade-off. everything was a shade of gray. we've got a shade of gray, and i'll give you my broad principle. to the degree that this moves us in the direction of that, then i think i'm opposed to this. i'm willing to listen to this argument, though, that it doesn't necessarily lead to that. by the way, it is equally offensive -- i have already told you what disturbs me over here. it is equally uncomfortable for me, fareed, to allow apple to kind of take a position that under no circumstances at any time for any purpose will they ever help american law enforcement. that is also an unsustainable position. >> well, i guess the other way to ask this question though is, can you say -- can the iphone 6 and onwards be the only warrant-proof product made in america? anything else that is made in the united states, if a court orders you to open it, whether it's a safe, a computer, a box,

you have to open it. >> you're looking at it too narrowly, all right? if american industry is prevented from building the unbreakable end-to-end encryption, the rest of the world's industry will do that, and then, fareed -- we're going to legislate to stop technological progress. that's not a winning hand, and even if you could somehow do it here in north america, are you now going to criminalize the possession of a phone made in denmark perhaps that actually has end-to-end unbreakable encryption. do you see the dilemma that we have here? and, again, i come back to the point, fareed, on balance american security -- privacy sure -- but american security is better served. look -- >> let me ask you, bottom line, if you had that phone, the san bernardino phone, would you have gone to tim cook and said open this phone? >> i think i would have, and then i would have given tim the opportunity to make the counter argument that, no, no, it's not just this. you can't make it just this. it's going to end up here. fareed, the last three years jim

clapper has testified, the director of national intelligence, that the most serious threat to this country is cyber, not terrorism. and if you step back from this picture, we're actually thinking about degrading our ability a bit to defend us against our primary threat, cyber, in order to better defend us against some other threats. that's what makes this so complicated. >> when we come back, we're going to talk about the president's plan to close guantanamo bay, we're going to talk about drones, and we're going to talk about hillary clinton's e-mail server when we come back. rock and roll work? it takes all kinds of jobs. and the best place to find the job that's right for you is on the world's number-one job site. indeed. how the world works. isn't it time to let the real you shine through? e to severe plaque psoriasis... introducing otezla, apremilast.

otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. unless you have allergies., then your eyes may see it differently. only flonase is approved to relieve both itchy, watery eyes and congestion. no other nasal allergy spray can say that.

when we breathe in allergens our bodies react by over producing six key inflammatory substances that cause our symptoms. most allergy pills only control one substance. flonase controls six. and six is greater than one. complete allergy relief or incomplete. let your eyes decide. flonase. 6>1 changes everything. i'm there for ray.sie. ted loved baseball. dr. phil likes to watch football. renne, who wants sloppy joe on the menu every day. rosie's my best friend. evelyn likes to dance. harriett wants her fried shrimp as well. alice anne likes vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup and rainbow sprinkles. they give me so much back. i can't even imagine how i could possibly give them what they give me.

what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org.

and we are back with michael hayden, the former director of the cia and the nsa. guantanamo bay, you had to deal with this when you were running the cia. the president says this is a stain on the united states. we have got to deal with it. our allies keep pointing out that this is inconsistent with america as the beacon of freedom. is he right? >> i don't think this is as clear and open and shut case as the president makes it to be. fareed, one of the arguments he says, that it's a recruitment magnet for jihadists. i don't think so. picture a recruiting line for raqqah and sometimes tweets they're going to close

guantanamo. i don't see anybody leaving the line. >> why did george w. bush want to close it? >> we did. that's a point of i want to emphasize. this is not the first administration that wanted to reduce the size. it's not so much it was a recruitment tool for jihadists. more or less it's an issue our allies, not our enemies. it makes our allies uncomfortable. now, keep in mind, fareed, let's say the president is successful. and i hope to god he's successful without creating a constitutional crisis, that we actually get a political agreement here, but let's say the president is successful and he moves these people to the united states. you realize he is still going to keep people indefinitely. there are some forever prisoners in that bunch that are never going to see a court of law, who are too dangerous to release but against whom we cannot martial a judicial process because of the rules of evidence, not because we lack confidence of what they have done. and so this is only going to be a partial palliative to our allies' heartburn over our

detention. the problem, fareed, is not that we're keeping prisoners in cuba. the problem is we believe we are a nation at war and that the laws of armed conflict apply to what it is we're doing. there's hardly a country in europe that agrees with that, and so we believe we get to kill people outside of internationally agreed theaters of conflict by targeted killings. none of our allies agree with that. it's not guantanamo, it's not cuba, it's this wholistic view that we think we're a country at war and most of our best allies don't buy it. >> one of the things that many people have felt is that the use of drones has become excessive under president obama, that it has become a substitute for sending special operations because you don't want to endanger american troops, that rather than going after the very highest level of, you know, al qaeda or isis operatives, it's being used routinely. you have huge spillover casualties, backlash in the local population. you still say you're pretty comfortable using drones. >> i am, and i push back on the

premise hidden in your question about massive civilian casualties and so on. i have seen the numbers. none of those numbers comport with my personal life experience, but you bring up a great issue, all right? this may make war too easy, all right? and i'm not talking about here about the operators, fareed. you have a young man or woman controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle staring down at a target for hours, if not days, waiting for him to kiss his family good-bye, to get out of the compound before you take the strike. that's not easy. that exacts an incredible emotional stress on our young forces in the armed forces. i'm talking about at the political level. at the political level, it's an opportunity to do something and be seen as doing something without committing the political capital of putting americans at risk, and i'm not in the business of putting americans at risk, but you understand how attractive that might be at the political level. >> if it's not important enough to send two special ops teams,

you should be asking yourself -- >> are we sure this is important enough to go do it, yeah. and by the way, it's not at the operational level. it's incredibly stressful there, believe me, i've seen it. >> and they say the drone operators have the same ptsd that real pilots do, regular pilots. >> that's right. but it's a really attractive option at the policy level. >> hillary clinton's e-mail server. forget about the issue of whether she should have done it. obviously, she shouldn't have done it. do you think there is some real danger here in terms of a threat to national security? there are 55,000 e-mails she's released and it doesn't -- >> and we know there's some bleeding of what's been identified as classified information. >> wasn't originally classified but later -- >> wasn't originally marked. you don't grow classification on the surface. >> wasn't originally marked, it was later marked. but bottom line, sort of in substantive real terms, do you think there is a real danger?

>> if i were still at nsa and someone told me sergei lavrov or someone like that -- >> the russian foreign minister. >> had a personal e-mail account that was just his unclassified stuff, i'd have moved heaven and earth. think of the insights that a foreign service would get even to unclassified information. i don't mean to be suggesting we may or may not do anything against the russian foreign minister. i'm just saying secretary clinton is a legitimate foreign intelligence target, and her personal, okay, government but unclassified, just assuming that to be true, e-mails would be of great interest to a foreign intelligence service, and, fareed, to round it out, i would lose respect for a whole bunch of intelligence services around the world if they weren't thumbing through the pile now. >> mike hayden, always a pleasure to talk to you. >> thank you. next on "gps" for centuries societies have wondered what is the best way to discourage

criminals from committing crimes? well, one city in america is trying a novel idea. paying the would-be criminals to stay out of trouble. is it working? it actually seems to be. i'll explain. then, woosh, it's gone. i swear i saw it swallow seven people. seven. i just wish one of those people could have been mrs. johnson. [dog bark] trust me, we're dealing with a higher intelligence here. ♪ the all-new audi q7 is here. ♪ (abdominal pain. urgent diarrhea. you never know when ibs-d will show up. now there's prescription xifaxan. xifaxan is a new ibs-d treatment that helps relieve your diarrhea and abdominal pain symptoms.

do not use xifaxan if you have a history of sensitivity to rifaximin, rifamycin antibiotic agents, or any components of xifaxan. tell your doctor right away if your diarrhea worsens while taking xifaxan, as this may be a sign of a serious or even fatal condition. tell your doctor if you have liver disease or are taking other medications, because these may increase the amount of xifaxan in your body. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan on becoming pregnant, or are nursing. the most common side effects are nausea and an increase in liver enzymes. if you think you have ibs with diarrhea talk to your doctor about new xifaxan. made a simple tripvere chto the grocery storeis anything but simple. so finally, i had an important conversation with my dermatologist about humira. he explained that humira works inside my body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to my symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults saw 75% skin clearance.

and the majority were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your dermatologist about humira. because with humira clearer skin is possible.

now, for our "what in the world" segment. here is a strange idea for you. what if cities paid likely criminals not to commit crimes? think it sounds crazy? well, washington, d.c., may start doing just that. after murders in the nation's capital went up 54% last year, the city council recently voted for a crime bill that includes a provision to give money to those who are most likely to commit acts of violence. >> all those in favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, say aye. >> 200 people per year could receive payments in conjunction with mentorship and therapy. criticism of the proposal has been witherring, as you might imagine, and the bill is not certain to go through, but here is a really crazy part. another city has run a similar

program for several years paying out tens of thousands of dollars, and it appears to be working. in 2007 the bay area city of richmond, california, was the ninth most dangerous city in the united states. things were so bad, the city officials thought about asking the national guard to be sent in. instead, they created the office of neighborhood safety, a new department, separate from law enforcement, that would focus on reaching out to the community to fight gun violence. the head of the program says he discovered a game-changing data point a few years in. about 70% of the gun crimes in the city were caused by only 28 people in 2009. if you could reach those 28 individuals, bogan thought, maybe you could bring down the crime rate. so bogan and his team spent weeks trying to find those young men, gathering almost two dozen of them for an unlikely meeting at city hall, he says. they were offered a deal.

to join an intensive multifaceted program of mentoring and therapy known as the peacemaker fellowship. if they stayed with it for six months, they could earn as much as $1,000 per month over the nine months that followed. all of them accepted the deal and the results since then, bogan says, have been remarkable. of the 68 who have participated in the program since 2010, 79% have not been suspected of a gun crime. remember, these are the worst of the worst in richmond. what's more, since bogan's department was created, homicides have plummeted from 2007 to 2014. firearm assaults also dropped dramatically during that period. but what about the cost of doling out thousands of dollars to would-be criminals? bogan argues that his program is chump change, compared to the current price tag for gun violence. in 2015 "mother jones" broke down the costs of american shootings from hospitalizations

to legal fees to imprisonment. each gun homicide costs taxpayers almost $400,000 on average. the total cost of gun violence, including the financial impact on the victims, came to over $229 billion per year in 2012. more expensive than obesity and just a bit less than federal medicaid spending. bogan's program spends, on average, $70,000 for the stipends for all the participants on average he says. but what the moral argument? should we really be paying people to be virtuous? bogan argues if anyone needs the extra help, it's the individuals in his program. they are forgotten members of society with hardly any support from parents, schools, or their communities. besides, let's face it, our current approach to crime isn't really working.

maybe we need some innovative ideas to save taxpayer money and american lives. up next, the world's richest man, bill gates, founded the world's biggest software company, microsoft. i will talk to him about the battle between apple and the fbi, and i'll ask him what he thinks of donald trump in the white house.

earlier in the week i had chance to sit down with the world's richest man, bill gates. there is, as always, much to talk to him about from the american presidential race to his bold new bet to find the fuel source or technology that will wean us all off carbon. we'll get to all that in a moment. but first i wanted this man, who made his billions in information technology, to tell me what he thought about apple's battle with the fbi, which needs special access to the san bernardino shooter's iphone. apple, as you know, is thus far

refusing to help. gates made headlines this week for backing the fbi. he said those headlines did not correctly characterize his views. listen carefully to what he told me and you be the judge. when you were running microsoft, if the fbi had come to you and said, there's a microsoft computer here. we have a court order. we need you to open up this computer because we need to see what information is in there, would you have complied? >> well, i think any company when the final judicial ruling issues will comply. i don't think there's anyone who is saying that they'll disobey a court order. whether they think, in general, the government should be blind to all activity and that there's no real legitimate function to

get at information or that the safeguards aren't there, you know, then you have to say, well, what about ever collecting taxes or stopping child pornography or perhaps most importantly as terrorism moves from conventional approaches to nuclear and biological, who are you counting on to find that early and make sure it doesn't happen? so there are issues about safeguards. the u.s. government, under j. edgar hoover and other cases, did take this right of surveillance and not use it entirely tastefully, and so, you know, i think most people hope that the safeguards are appropriate so that the government isn't totally blind. >> the argument one could make is apple shouldn't be deciding this issue of privacy. yes, there should be privacy, the government should be very careful with this data, but those are decisions to be made by the elected representatives of government, not by a private company. >> well, even apple would agree. i don't think apple is going to defy -- maybe they will take it all the way to the supreme court

to make sure the government really insists and that it's totally the government's responsibility and that they can say, okay, we -- either we don't like the safeguards of this country or we don't like the safeguards of other countries and, hey, we resisted this, but we had no choice. other than -- so i think at the end of the day the government will decide about this, and in the meantime, the debate about, oh, do we have the right safeguards in place, what is the role of government in terms of being able to see bad things or enforce its laws? you know, it's all been -- although i disagreed with specific things that go on,

the idea that this has become more of a discussion of, hey, we didn't have safeguards for the fbi a long time ago, what do we have now? i doubt we'll go in the direction of saying, okay, let's make the government blind because they messed up in the past, but the overall discussion is worthwhile. >> do you feel like we're entering a kind of brave new world with digital that is scary where so much of our lives exists on these devices, so much of the information is available? does that feel to you like liberating? does it feel to you like it's worrying? >> well, most of those things are incredibly valuable. the ability to pick music as you choose, the ability to remember your kids growing up and go back and look at that stuff anytime you want. electronic medical records will let us find disease patterns and say, okay, exercise really does count or certain nutritional things do or actually, you know, a little bit of wine actually

isn't that bad for you. so i see the potential as long as you have the safeguards. the place where technology is the most daunting to people i wouldn't say so much privacy as it is the labor substitution where a lot of the jobs in the economy, eventually a computer with better than human vision and better than human manipulation skills will outcompete the labor function. >> so then that leads me to the question of the current presidential race. what do you think of what you're seeing right now in the presidential race? >> well, the issues that i'm really in depth on are really two because of my full-time work at the foundation. one is the role of foreign aid

in lifting up poor countries in health and agricultural and other things and the incredible value that the rich countries, including the united states, have had in helping those countries and that we're getting smarter about doing that and linda and i have chosen to put a lot of our money against those same causes in partnership. so that generosity is important to me. in 2008 both obama and mccain committed to generous foreign aid and it's great when that type of u.s. leadership, the greatness of the u.s. helping lift other people up, that that's a very positive thing. i'm not sure in this election will we end up with a mutual commitment to engage internationally in that way or not. i'm hopeful on that. >> i'm guessing donald trump would not be in favor of generous foreign aid to help foreigners. >> it will be interesting, because if you want to help people in their own countries and be happy in their own countries, you know, maybe that is a good thing in some way, and honestly it is america at its best. the marshall plan that helped

rebuild europe, and business-type thinking that measures this stuff, makes sure it's well spent, that is happening, and we're part of a whole movement towards being more open about which policies don't work and which ones do. >> up next, bill gates and some of the other richest men and women in the world are putting their money where their mouths are. they're teaming up to tackle climate change but in a novel way. gates will explain when we come back.

most new wealth flows it's called a rigged economy, and this is how it works. to the top 1%. it's a system held in place by corrupt politics where wall street banks and billionaires buy elections. my campaign is powered by millions of small contributions. people like you who want to fight back. the truth is you can't change a corrupt system by taking its money. i'm bernie sanders. i approve this message. join us for real change. isn't it time to let the real you shine through? e to severe plaque psoriasis... introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients.

otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. hundreds of crash simulations. thousands of hours of painstaking craftsmanship. and an infinite reserve of patience... ...to create a vehicle that looks, drives and thinks like nothing else on the road. the all-new glc. the suv the world has been waiting for. starting at $38,950.

this week, bill gates and his wife, melinda, released their annual letter in which they lay out the priorities for their foundation for the year and the challenges they want to tackle with their vast sums of

money. for bill, it is energy. he is concerned about the long-term impact of global warming and wants to wean the world off carbon-based fuels. but he believes that current approaches are too incremental. we need a big bang, a new miracle energy source that has almost no emissions and is cheaper than coal. so he called up a bunch of his billionaire friends and asked them to form an investment fund called the break through energy coalition to do what the rest of the private sector won't, put money into energy long shots that could fail in a big way or succeed in a big way. the group includes the likes of mark zuckerberg, george soros, and richard branson. it's a bold bet. listen to him explain why it is so important. you study the scientific literature very carefully. do you think global warming is a reality and is manmade and is an urgent problem? >> there's no doubt about those

things. it's only urgent in the sense that the amount of time to solve the problem is so long. that is, the problems caused by climate change in the next 20, 30 years are not that dramatic but because when you emit co2 it stays in the atmosphere for literally hundreds of years, you have to revamp your energy system that's creating those emissions, and the people who follow this remind us how long it takes to make a change. so it's a long lead time problem, but it needs us to invest today. >> and so what you're saying is that the only way we could actually bend this curve in a significant way and get it to the place where global warming will not pose a threat to the planet is to have a new source of energy that is plentiful and that is cheaper than coal, which is currently the cheapest energy, right? >> exactly. so we need to find a path.

so one path would be to reduce the cost of today's solar and wind by another factor of three, and then to have a magic storage solution that meant that over the course of a day or the course of weeks when you can have no wind, that the energy is still available. so that storage approach, that's one way we could go. or there are scientists working on taking the sun and instead of making electricity, making gasoline directly from the sun, and that's magical because we know how to store liquid hydrocarbons, gasoline in big tanks and send them around in pipelines. if nuclear fission was cheaper and dramatically safer, which that's the next generation there, called the fourth generation, and i'm invested in one of the companies working towards that, that would also be

a great solution. >> why did you think you needed to collect a bunch of billionaires to fund this? shouldn't governments be doing that. isn't that what governments should be doing with our tax revenues? >> well, there's a very good debate about the role of government. in basic research, there's not much debate because you can't make money on it, and so you get bipartisan funding. as soon as you move away from the loans they get and grants they get you get in to a gray area that feels uncomfortable for some people in terms of picking winners and, you know, is it more influence than merit and those things. that's why in order to encourage the governments to step up, i said the risk-taking part, that the private side, a number of people are wealthy enough to

bear the risk and care about this issue, came together and committed billions of dollars in funding for the companies that spend in the research. i was amazed, of course everybody i called said yes right away. we end in a pretty 'lanche group and now we can go to endowments and corporations and bring them in as well to make it as a large as we can. >> pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. next on "gps," it may not make fuel from the sun as bill gates is hoping for, but one desert kingdom is trying to weed itself off of oil by making the most of its very sunny location. i will tell you more when we come back. g in touch with custo. at&t can help you stay connected. am i seeing double? no ma'am. our at&t 'buy one get one free' makes it easier for your staff to send appointment reminders to your customers... ...and share promotions on social media?

you know it! now i'm seeing dollar signs. you should probably get your eyes checked. good one babe. optometry humor. right now get up to $650 in credits to help you switch to at&t.

how do robots work? ♪ you need a team... ...working together... ♪ ...doing all kinds of jobs. and the best place to find the job that's right for you is on the world's number-one job site. indeed. how the world works. you stay up. you listen. you laugh. you worry. you do whatever it takes to take care of your family. and when it's time to plan for your family's future,

we're here for you. we're legalzoom, and for over 10 years we've helped families just like yours with wills and living trusts. so when you're ready, start with us. doing the right thing has never been easier. legalzoom. legal help is here.

♪ no, you're not ♪ yogonna watch it! ♪tch it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download on the goooooo! ♪ ♪ you'll just have to miss it! ♪ yeah, you'll just have to miss it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download... uh, no thanks. i have x1 from xfinity so... don't fall for directv. xfinity lets you download your shows from anywhere. i used to like that song. this week, president obama announced his plan to close the military prison at the american naval base in guantanamo bay, cuba. it brings me to my question -- when did the united states first lease the 45-square smooil mimi

guantanamo bay and why? is it 1823, a slave transfer station, 1846, a naval base for the mexican-american warks 1902, a coaling, fulg station or 1927 an airmail stopover station. stay tuned and we will tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is not a book but it is book length. it is a magazine. the journal foreign affairs published the march-april issues. the great slow down, end of innovation, dem graham graphics, lessons from japan and more on politics and diplomacy, as well. it is worth subscribing to foreign affairs or buy this issue off the newsstands. and now for the last look, you heard bill gates talk about his quest for an energy miracle. half way around the world the

king of morocco pressed a button and turned on what will be the world's largest concentrated solar plant even before half of the project is finished, it is already visible from space as nasa points out. it works by using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's energy on to pipelines carrying fluid. it turns in to steam and turns turbines much like many conventional sources of electricity. the plant can operate when it is cloudy or at night as the fluid heats and makes steam for hours. concentrated solar panel has been used for over 30 years here in the united states and morocco, once completed the complex will produce enough power to provide energy to 1.1 million people by 2018 as the world bank points out. why aren't there more projects like this, especially in places

like morocco that are full of deserts? it has been seen as too expensive compared to fossil fuel alternatives. but think of it this way, we will never run out of solar power . every six hours, more solar energy reaches the world's deserts than all of humanity uses in an entire year. the correct answer to the gps challenge question is, c, 113 years ago this week on february 23rd, 1903, president roosevelt signed an agreement with the cubans to lease lands in cuba for coaling and naval stations. the coaling part means reup supplying vessels with the fuel that made their engines run. they said they would -- the relationship changed when fidel castro took over in 1959.

he and his brother refused to cash the annual $485,000 rent checks the united states pays for guantanamo as protest. thank you for being part of my program. i will see you next week. i don't know anything about david duke or what you are talking about with white supremacy or supreme assist. >> donald trump dodging questions about the kkk tweeting he disavows the david duke endorsement. newsroom starts now. >> thank you for joining us. i'm fredricka whitfield. the search for clarity over who supports donald trump is intensifying this hour. we are talking about donald trump and the kkk.